You are here

Pages

I do not actually hold that position. That's Stengah's understanding of what I said about parental prerogatives, in his own shorthand. This topic has been discussed in the Circumcision thread and lately in the Conservatives vs. Women thread vis a vis minors opting whether or not to have abortion.

I think Hypatian covers the counter position nicely:

Assume I'm talking in specific about U.S. policy, but in general about ethics. While I don't believe that the U.S. policy ought to be instituted everywhere in the world, I do believe that the ethical questions and the correct answers to them are indeed universal. Of course, in a society that does not actually value human rights (and yes, the U.S. falls down here in more places than it should) many of the things I take as axioms would be controversial. Nonetheless, I stand by them.

This is not about the state. This is about society. The state's actions are the actions of society by proxy. The state's laws are the choices of society by proxy. When things are important, we put them into law so that they may be handled as fairly and consistently as possible. Because not every situation is the same, we entrust government officials with interpreting and implementing the law so that consistency does not override compassion.

In the case of children, the starting point is the idea that as a society, we consider parents to generally be "in charge" of their children. But at the same time, we know there are situations where this cannot be allowed. Children cannot be sold. They cannot be forced to toil in factories. They must be given at least a cursory education. They may be punished, but not abused. They must be cared for. Further, "parents" isn't quite right, because the people responsible for these things aren't necessarily the parents. They are the "legal guardians". That includes whoever cares for and makes decisions for a child, whether it's their biological parents, step-parents, adopted parents, grandparents, foster family, or whoever.

So, what is the philosophical foundation upon which this distinction rests, between the things that guardians are allowed to do to/for the children in their care and the things they are not?

My interpretation is that children must be treated as equal to adults. I don't mean that we don't or shouldn't recognize that they're not ready to exercise full responsibility for their actions—but even as we are allowing them to make mistakes or protecting them from making mistakes, they are still equal. It is very very easy to miss that, to treat them as less than a full human being just because their experience and emotional development are still a work in progress.

When the state steps in to a bad situation between a guardian and a child, it's doing so because of the law, because we as a society have decided that there are limits on what should be allowed. In general, these limits are quite broad, and guardians are usually given the benefit of the doubt when there is a doubt. (In fact, they're probably given the benefit of the doubt far more than the situation deserves.)

Why are there limits? Because as I said before, the guardians only hold the rights of their children in trust, because the guardians hold a position of great power in this relationship, and because we know for a fact that there are adults who abuse that position of power and authority, and have decided that children must be protected from such abuse. The vast majority of these protections are in place in an attempt to protect all minors, even those who we do not yet consider competent enough to exercise their judgement alone. They are put into the care of a different guardian who will hopefully do better.

We also have a principle where children can argue before the court that they deserve if not the full rights of an adult, at the least the autonomy of an adult. We do this because we recognize that some minors are far more mature than some adults. This gives a further release valve, by allowing for those minors who are demonstrably capable of making well-reasoned decisions to cease having a guardian altogether. There are generally limits on what the person, who is still a minor, is allowed to do, and government officials have the duty to monitor their well-being—but it's a much looser constraint than the guardian-child relationship. I think part of why this mechanism exists is that we know that once they reach a certain age, minors will run away from home to escape abusive situations. This mechanism is an attempt to replicate that in a more controlled way, in the hopes that at least some minors will choose this instead of choosing to run away, and that the support of social services will help them finish growing.

All of this is consistent with the idea that the minor's welfare matters, that they should be treated as a full human being even when we don't trust their judgement yet, and that parents are only the first most obvious trustee for the rights of a child.

I don't think the law, or most peoples' reflection on these things, are as explicit as I've laid them out here. But I do believe they come from a similar consistent sense of justice. It's a hard balance, because people are very very attached to their children—and because we know that even that attachment can sometimes cause problems. That's why this is public policy, and ethics, and not engineering.

And to connect this to our debate here: the tragedy of a minor becoming pregnant and disagreeing with her guardian about what course of action to take is tremendous, whether she's being forced into bearing a child or being forced into having an abortion. Not only does the mere fact that the minor is capable of becoming pregnant mean that she is at least coming near to the point where we consider her to be competent to make her own decisions, but any extended legal argument for removing guardianship, or emancipating the minor, or anything like that will take long enough to make the question at hand moot, as the pregnancy will likely have come to term.

Personally, if I had been in that situation as a teen I would be furious with my parents, and would take whatever further steps necessary to place myself in a more acceptable position after the pregnancy was over. If they would be willing to force my choice that way, I would not consider them fit to be my guardians. But then, I was exactly the kind of person who could reasonably argue for emancipation if I thought it necessary. Still, I expect I could have been forced to either bear a child or terminate a pregnancy by my parents before achieving emancipation if something like that happened, and that would have been awful.

The nastier side of things is for those who have strong opinions, but are not so sure of themselves. Who are worried about their ability to support themselves. Those who find the family bonds more important than the abuse being heaped upon them. They probably have no idea that anything like emancipation is possible—and even if it were, they probably wouldn't think to try to achieve it. If they're lucky, they might have other relatives they could go to for support who could contest the guardianship. Someone like this could also end up being forced into an action she doesn't want, but very well may end up having to remain with those who forced her into that action. That would be really really stressful.

Finally, note that I think the U.S. system already addresses these scenarios. It's just that I think it prioritizes the judgement of the guardian over that of the minor more than it should, and that in this specific scenario there's just not enough time to properly judge the maturity of the minor. (And, of course, a lot of social conservatives are arguing to roll some of these protections back.)

Overall, it's just really really hard to get right, because it's terribly hard to judge the content of peoples' hearts.

--

The real tragedy, of course, which we seem to have lost sight of, is simply that girls are made pregnant before they are ready to have a child. And again, the only solution to that is education and easy access to contraceptives for minors. It's a lot easier to avoid becoming pregnant if you know how—and we've all been young and know that for many young people, abstinence is a lot to ask. Hormones are pretty strong, huh? That's part of why we don't trust the judgement of minors.

But teens aren't universally stupid. They can in fact think about their situation and what they want to do. And the vast majority don't want to become parents as teenagers. Those who do, or think they do... well... trying to prevent someone from becoming pregnant if they really want to is a little tricky.

Still, the very least we can do is make sure that everyone knows how to choose not to. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.

It's very depressing that so many people in this country think that "nothing" is the right answer.

My own position is less well expressed over two threads and a heckuvabunch of posts. Let me start off with this:

The human brain matures until well into the 20s. There's evidence to suggest that a human isn't really fully done growing until then. More cogently, areas of the brain that continue to develop have to do with impulse control and risk assessment.

We also have psychological and psychiatric models of emotional and mental maturity.

Thus, we cannot expect teenagers to make mature decisions about pretty much anything, regardless of how we educate them. It's not the information that's lacking, it's nerve endings.

Theoretically, we could hard-wire teens through training not to have sex ever, but that's really not the same as actually giving them choices.

It is an inherent truth that parents have rights over their children, because they're bigger and more powerful. Whether or not that is moral according to your worldview is not part of this assertion. Parents can enforce their will on their children by dint of many mechanisms, some of which are biologically wired.

That said, it has happened that other parents together banded together to form things like tribes, and then kingdoms, and then states. States have power over all in their jurisdiction along the same lines; states can even force parents, through sheer might, to only have one child at a time. This can and has happened.

Is forcing children to work so that the family doesn't starve right or wrong? You think it's wrong. Well, how much money are you willing to put up to enforce that worldview on other people? Society isn't other people. The state is not "them." It's you. Or someone specific. If you enforce, through the state, a policy that children cannot work, but are not willing to pay the money to feed those on the fringes, then what you are really enacting is death penalties by dint of the crime of being poor, where the first to be executed are the children of poor people.

This is realpolitik.

Should the state take this responsibility? Shouldn't we first evaluate whether it can?

There are entire families of starving Filipinos throughout my country. The state cannot or does not act to succor them. Does it have the moral right to enforce your rule on a family? Doesn't a dying family have the right to save itself by any means within its power, including forcing its children to work?

Points of clarification:

So you're acknowledging that your argument against the right of a minor to an abortion is also an argument against the power of the state to compel a parent to save the life of their child?

Maybe, maybe not: the fact remains I've shown you how giving minors the right to abortions meets your own stated criteria for (as you see it) moving parental prerogatives to the state. So, logically, you should be on board with a minor's right to an abortion now that I've demonstrated that to you.

I don't recall giving any such criteria. I was clarifying that "giving the choice to the child" is not really what's happening. The state is taking parental prerogatives. I did not talk about any criteria wherein I would accept this as necessary.

You sound as though you are in favor of letting the parents make the decision in the example of the appendectomy too, even if they decide not to have it done which would clearly endanger the life of the child. Is that correct, or am I reading you wrong?

That is the point of medical consent; it is to have the legal executor make an informed decision, whatever it is. The parents may or may not consent; that is their right and responsibility. We cannot force this; it has not been considered moral in any bioethical conference I've been party to.

Honestly, I don't think your argument is nuanced at all. I don't say this to cause offense, but your argument is 'Parents have the right to make every decision for their kids up until their 18th birthday'. That's far from nuanced. I rather think that guided decision making is much more effective both in terms of outcomes as well as in terms of actually teaching kids to become responsible adults. I guess that's only tangentially related to the topic at hand, however. And Demyx brings up another good counter argument to your two-year-old-with-appendicitis objection.

Parents have the right and responsibility to make every legal decision for the kids up until their kids reach legal age. They cannot choose not to decide, and I would consider it remiss to leave it to the kids, themselves. Their inability to make choices well is the entire point for why we have parents as a social and legal entity in the first place.

Guided decision making is only sensible to the point where information is the only thing that is of consequence. We, as doctors, do not make medical decisions for anyone; we are charged with dispensing information to enable informed consent, instead.

We do not charge children as legal actors for reasons other than "they're stupid." There are specific reasons and inadequacies that children express that make them inappropriate legal actors. Of course, very young children often cannot communicate well and have problems with weighing future vs. present factors. They may also not be intellectually equipped to understand the situation at all; i.e. they cannot comprehend what "surgery" is.

Teens are better equipped for understanding and making sound decisions, but they are still not adults in terms of neurology, psychiatry, and behavior.

Parents have the right and responsibility to make every legal decision for the kids up until their kids reach legal age. They cannot choose not to decide, and I would consider it remiss to leave it to the kids, themselves. Their inability to make choices well is the entire point for why we have parents as a social and legal entity in the first place.

This is where we differ. There are cases where the parents (or guardians) may actually be far worse decision-makers than their children. There are cases where children can absolutely be trusted to make the right decision for themselves. There are cases where legal concerns are important enough that courts can step in and tell the guardians that they're not doing the right thing for the child, in the case where there was an action that had to be taken, or an objection from a child who is making a better decision for themselves.

The absolute idea that parents or guardians have the right to override their child's prerogative regardless of the individual circumstances of each case is more than a little abhorrent to me.

It's a question of concrete examples and realpolitik, NSMike. You said in the Conservative thread that in the link Cheeze posted where the MD was speaking, you said that he was not a legal expert. That's true. But he's a doctor and he has experience on the ground. He thinks that it can happen that the minor was forced into a chemo that neither she nor her parents wanted. I have actually seen this happen, and I have heard of it happening in the US (I have many nurse and MD friends, of course).

True social events and traditions are encoded in both law and practice.

I do not think it wise to begin by entrusting children to manage their own affairs. That doesn't mean that I will accept no nuance.

The absolute idea that parents or guardians have the right to override their child's prerogative regardless of the individual circumstances of each case is more than a little abhorrent to me.

I agree, and agree with basically all of Hypatian's excellent post.

LarryC, you say in the very first sentence that you don't believe that children are the property of their parents. But if you think that parents can make EVERY SINGLE DECISION for their children how is that any different?

In the other thread you danced around this, but it's appropriate here: Do you believe there should be laws preventing parents from physically harming their children?

It's a question of concrete examples and realpolitik, NSMike. You said in the Conservative thread that in the link Cheeze posted where the MD was speaking, you said that he was not a legal expert. That's true. But he's a doctor and he has experience on the ground. He thinks that it can happen that the minor was forced into a chemo that neither she nor her parents wanted. I have actually seen this happen, and I have heard of it happening in the US (I have many nurse and MD friends, of course).

I do not think it wise to begin by entrusting children to manage their own affairs. That doesn't mean that I will accept no nuance.

This is not what's being put forth, either.

When I was 10, I could not handle a checking account. I'm 30 now and can still barely handle one. Regardless, it does no good to speak in absolutes. I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating the total abdication of responsibility for the parents and full rights for the child. I'm saying a system that allows for legitimate examination of the circumstances without adhering to the rule of law mindlessly is the best situation for all parties. Your prospect assumes the parents are rational, responsible actors. There are plenty of cases where they're not. The same can be said for children. There are also children, whether by intelligence or providence, who make rational, responsible decisions for themselves that are better than the decisions being put forth by their parents. Do we ignore these in favor of a system that grants absolute power to the parents? That's far more tragic, in my opinion.

LarryC, you say in the very first sentence that you don't believe that children are the property of their parents. But if you think that parents can make EVERY SINGLE DECISION for their children how is that any different?

Not every single decision. That is a point of nuance that is very important; and you and NSMike have glossed it over. Legal decisions are necessarily the purview of an adult by dint of maturity and power - financial, political, military. We shorthand that by saying "parent," but it is not their heritage that charges them with this right and responsibility. It is because they are adults. We saddle them with it because we presume that they are willing to take this charge.

Property is not the same. Having parents make legal decisions for their children doesn't mean that they can assault them, since being assaulted is typically not something you can decide legally as a legal actor. The state decides on that definition as a matter of public order, not as a way of taking parental powers.

CheezePavilion:

Logically, you could continue to have your objection to life-saving medical procedures ordered by the state over the wishes of both parent and child on the basis of your objection to transfer of power from the parents to the state and not the child, and still change your position on a minor's right to an abortion.

Needs exposition. I'm not sure how I could change position on the latter, but maintain the former.

Property is not the same. Having parents make legal decisions for their children doesn't mean that they can assault them, since being assaulted is typically not something you can decide legally as a legal actor. The state decides on that definition as a matter of public order, not as a way of taking parental powers.

I think you don't realize you're just calling things you want to defend "transfer of parental prerogative to the state" and things you don't want to defend "a matter of public order." You just talked about parents beating their children to keep them away from poisonous snakes and about forcing them to work. That's assault (that word is problematic because it has varying definitions and understanding, but as long as we're all on the same page of it being along the lines of hitting people, we'll go with it).

When I was 10, I could not handle a checking account. I'm 30 now and can still barely handle one. Regardless, it does no good to speak in absolutes. I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating the total abdication of responsibility for the parents and full rights for the child. I'm saying a system that allows for legitimate examination of the circumstances without adhering to the rule of law mindlessly is the best situation for all parties. Your prospect assumes the parents are rational, responsible actors. There are plenty of cases where they're not. The same can be said for children. There are also children, whether by intelligence or providence, who make rational, responsible decisions for themselves that are better than the decisions being put forth by their parents. Do we ignore these in favor of a system that grants absolute power to the parents? That's far more tragic, in my opinion.

You're missing the other party in this discussion - the state. You're also assuming that the state will act in ways that are rational and impartial, or that will agree with your personal views. It won't always do that. By virtue of where I am, I am inherently distrustful of our state, so I am wary of anything that increases state power.

In any specialized hearing regarding a specific question, the state can discern the specifics of the case without having to make generalities, nor answer for it being a precedent, since it is deemed a specialized case. There is no question about how a child will choose to exercise his or her rights surrounding a question when he contests his parents before a court; the entire point of the exercise is to obtain the capability to do so.

For example, if a teen chooses to pursue, at great personal cost, a case wherein she wants an abortion against her parents wishes, there is little question about what's going to happen should the court choose to side with her.

It becomes obvious, therefore, that the court is not giving a choice to the child. It is making its own choice regarding the case, presumably with respect to its own interests. If it wants the abortion, it will award the case to whoever is in favor of it with predictable results. If it does not, then it award the case to whoever agrees with its interests.

That is what I see coming from a system that purports to "legitimately examine" a case for when a minor contests his or her parents. It doesn't award the minor anything; it simply takes parental power and awards it to the state.

I think we can safely say that hitting someone with the result of their continuing to live is a special case where assault will not be considered; we are charged with electrifying someone who's dead without regard for consent. If we did that to a live person, we'd be charged with assault.

The definitions of assault and battery and other such question ARE a matter of public order in terms of policy. Typically, these definitions will reside in the penal code of a code of laws, not in the family code. That's not a defense of a position or an argument; that's just a definition.

You're missing the other party in this discussion - the state. You're also assuming that the state will act in ways that are rational and impartial, or that will agree with your personal views. It won't always do that. By virtue of where I am, I am inherently distrustful of our state, so I am wary of anything that increases state power.

True, I didn't really give the state much of a position in the argument. Whether or not they agree with my personal views is immaterial, I think, if I'm involved in one of these cases. If I'm the child with the idea that I am making the right choice, if the state rules against me, I'm going to feel wronged. If I'm the guardian with the idea that I am making the right choice, if the state rules against me, I'm going to feel wronged. As an outside observer, I'll have my own opinion, and the state may make a choice that goes against, for, or ultimately doesn't affect me. The point is that there is the ability to examine and determine these cases in the first place. To stand by absolutes is more dangerous than offending individuals, and in any free society, you're never going to have consensus.

It becomes obvious, therefore, that the court is not giving a choice to the child. It is making its own choice regarding the case, presumably with respect to its own interests. If it wants the abortion, it will award the case to whoever is in favor of it with predictable results. If it does not, then it award the case to whoever agrees with its interests.

That's a pretty cynical view, and while I don't deny that it may have some grounding in reality sometimes, I am hopeful enough that it doesn't always go that way. I am hopeful that judges and juries are looking more at what is right for the individuals involved and not strictly at party-line talking points.

You're missing the other party in this discussion - the state. You're also assuming that the state will act in ways that are rational and impartial, or that will agree with your personal views. It won't always do that. By virtue of where I am, I am inherently distrustful of our state, so I am wary of anything that increases state power.

In any specialized hearing regarding a specific question, the state can discern the specifics of the case without having to make generalities, nor answer for it being a precedent, since it is deemed a specialized case. There is no question about how a child will choose to exercise his or her rights surrounding a question when he contests his parents before a court; the entire point of the exercise is to obtain the capability to do so.

For example, if a teen chooses to pursue, at great personal cost, a case wherein she wants an abortion against her parents wishes, there is little question about what's going to happen should the court choose to side with her.

It becomes obvious, therefore, that the court is not giving a choice to the child. It is making its own choice regarding the case, presumably with respect to its own interests. If it wants the abortion, it will award the case to whoever is in favor of it with predictable results. If it does not, then it award the case to whoever agrees with its interests.

That is what I see coming from a system that purports to "legitimately examine" a case for when a minor contests his or her parents. It doesn't award the minor anything; it simply takes parental power and awards it to the state.

I think this is the biggest problem you have with what we're arguing for. When the state allows the child to decide for themselves, they are not making the choice for the child, they're merely respecting the child's choice (and reaffirming their right to make it).
There certainly are situations where the state makes the choice for the child. If a child that does not meet the mature minor criteria or is unable to choose for themselves (i.e. is unconscious) is in a life-or-death situation, the state will always choose to do what it reasonably can to save the life of the child (overruling the parent's choice if it is to let the child die). This is what our society has decided is the right thing to do.

I do not think we can. Because then you open up the door to the state figuring out whether it is a special case or not. Which means you've walked onto your own slippery slope.

The state generally decides what kinds of assault and battery are exempted, again as a matter of resolving public order, not as a means to take power away from families. For instance, ruling that consent is waived in situations involving life or death and the person is incapable of making a decision is a specific case against general assault definitions. It does not impact family power and dynamic in any meaningful way since we assume that everyone will want their family member saved when possible.

There's a useful general loophole in that where I come from. We assume that families will consent to emergency life-saving procedures; however, in the event that they express a converse opinion, we deem their interests obviously contrary to that of the patient (since they want him/her to die!) and can use that as grounds to disallow them legal advocate powers going forward.

I have never seen or heard of any situation in which a family member legally objected to emergency treatment on the grounds that they wanted their relative to die. They generally keep that to themselves.

NSMike:

True, I didn't really give the state much of a position in the argument. Whether or not they agree with my personal views is immaterial, I think, if I'm involved in one of these cases. If I'm the child with the idea that I am making the right choice, if the state rules against me, I'm going to feel wronged. If I'm the guardian with the idea that I am making the right choice, if the state rules against me, I'm going to feel wronged. As an outside observer, I'll have my own opinion, and the state may make a choice that goes against, for, or ultimately doesn't affect me. The point is that there is the ability to examine and determine these cases in the first place. To stand by absolutes is more dangerous than offending individuals, and in any free society, you're never going to have consensus.

I'm not particularly concerned about individuals being offended. As you point out, that's going to happen in any case where there's disagreement. I'd like to point out that that happens often in medical practice around here. Children generally universally don't understand why we need to stick needles in them, regardless of how well we explain.

They generally respond well to parental pressure, though. I have had children offer me their hand/arm freely because their parent asked them to, and praised their efforts afterwards.

That's a pretty cynical view, and while I don't deny that it may have some grounding in reality sometimes, I am hopeful enough that it doesn't always go that way. I am hopeful that judges and juries are looking more at what is right for the individuals involved and not strictly at party-line talking points.

It's commonplace where I come from, so it's less cynical and more realistic, if you're talking about certain locations. For reference, we (the Philippines) just had one of the justices of the Supreme Court impeached on the matter of his not disclosing his total net worth accurately, and the rest of Congress and pretty much every public servant of note ignoring large social media and normal media calls for them to disclose their assets; which is a legal requirement for every public servant. This is necessary because judicial bribing is an endemic problem.

I do not know that "hoping" does it for me.

The reason I prefer for parents to retain this power vs. the state is because I am assured that other parents cannot rule against me, as a parent or as a child, in order to exercise their interests. They simply do not get that power. If the state exercises the power, it can.

Given a choice between my own parents and people who do not know me each acting to advance their personal interests, I prefer for my parents to exercise my legal rights. Indeed, I still give over my legal rights this way to my spouse every time I go under GA and cannot decide for myself.

I think you have an entirely too optimistic view of what your state is and does. States are not disinterested actors. They won't always do what you think is right. In fact, they are likely to do what they think is right 100% of the time, with your input being somewhat factored in depending on how politically active you are.

How they describe their choice is not to be trusted; they will often try to paint it in the best possible light, of course. We saw that in the Circumcision thread with the judge describing his choice as "respecting the rights of the child." I don't buy that for one second. That's just the spin.

I think you have an entirely too optimistic view of what your state is and does. States are not disinterested actors. They won't always do what you think is right. In fact, they are likely to do what they think is right 100% of the time, with your input being somewhat factored in depending on how politically active you are.

How they describe their choice is not to be trusted; they will often try to paint it in the best possible light, of course. We saw that in the Circumcision thread with the judge describing his choice as "respecting the rights of the child." I don't buy that for one second. That's just the spin.

I think my view of what my state is and does is much better informed than yours.
Do you have any actual evidence that the judge was lying about respecting the rights of the German children?

Hope, and perhaps a little faith in people, are the only defenses I have against cynicism. You can reason a cynical motivation for just about any action. I prefer to think that it isn't always the case.

States are not disinterested actors. They won't always do what you think is right. In fact, they are likely to do what they think is right 100% of the time, with your input being somewhat factored in depending on how politically active you are..

LarryC wrote:

There's a useful general loophole in that where I come from. We assume that families will consent to emergency life-saving procedures; however, in the event that they express a converse opinion, we deem their interests obviously contrary to that of the patient (since they want him/her to die!) and can use that as grounds to disallow them legal advocate powers going forward.

I'm trying to figure out how the benevolent "We" is any different from the oppressive "They."

I do not think we can. Because then you open up the door to the state figuring out whether it is a special case or not. Which means you've walked onto your own slippery slope.

The state generally decides what kinds of assault and battery are exempted, again as a matter of resolving public order, not as a means to take power away from families. For instance, ruling that consent is waived in situations involving life or death and the person is incapable of making a decision is a specific case against general assault definitions. It does not impact family power and dynamic in any meaningful way since we assume that everyone will want their family member saved when possible.

There's a useful general loophole in that where I come from. We assume that families will consent to emergency life-saving procedures; however, in the event that they express a converse opinion, we deem their interests obviously contrary to that of the patient (since they want him/her to die!) and can use that as grounds to disallow them legal advocate powers going forward.

I have never seen or heard of any situation in which a family member legally objected to emergency treatment on the grounds that they wanted their relative to die. They generally keep that to themselves.

And a father is still not allowed to deny his child life-saving medical treatment. The parent does not get to make that choice either.

Excellent examples. Do these examples amply show that the power is NOT being given to the child, but is being taken by the state? He or she is NOT allowed to refuse chemo here; and since the parent isn't, either, no one can.

That is what can happen when you take powers away from the parent or family and allow the state to exercise them.

First you say "That is what can happen when you take powers away from the parent or family" but then you say "It does not impact family power and dynamic in any meaningful way"

It's hard to figure out what you're actually arguing--and therefore, what you actual criticisms of the arguments of others are and how we should respond to you--if your take on the same situation of a parent refusing life-saving treatment can go from "Excellent examples" when it is convenient for you to "useful general loophole" when it is not.

I think my view of what my state is and does is much better informed than yours.
Do you have any actual evidence that the judge was lying about respecting the rights of the German children?

Clearly not. The nature of a good spin is that it's unfalsifiable. That said, I find it highly suspicious that the judge conspicuously deigns to comment exhaustively on how his ruling will affect Muslims and Jews, which are the section of the nation's stakeholders who will most obviously be affected by it. Instead, he chooses to discuss "rights of the child" principles.

It's not proof, but I find it highly suspicious.

NSMike:

Hope, and perhaps a little faith in people, are the only defenses I have against cynicism. You can reason a cynical motivation for just about any action. I prefer to think that it isn't always the case.

I'm an anesthesiologist by trade. I hope for the best, but my training tells me to prepare for the worst, every time. Sometimes, every single thing does go wrong, and at the worst possible time. It's best to be prepared.

While I could reason a "cynical" motivation for every action, I prefer to look at political and economic forces impassively, and to simply reason from the POV that everyone looks out for their own economic interests. Economists do this all the time; should we call them professional cynics?

Rezzy:

I'm trying to figure out how the benevolent "We" is any different from the oppressive "They."

"We" was not meant benevolently. It was simply a statement of involvement. I am part of that action. Needless to say, I am doing what I think is right, but I am also moved by political and economic forces.

While I could reason a "cynical" motivation for every action, I prefer to look at political and economic forces impassively, and to simply reason from the POV that everyone looks out for their own economic interests. Economists do this all the time; should we call them professional cynics?

You say you're looking at the situation impassively, but look at what Rezzy just posted above. It seems like you keep assuming the worst motives when it comes to how other societies (particularly the US) are run, while rarely turning a critical eye towards your own society. This came up in another thread where I had a discussion with you where you asserted that sexual harassment hardly ever happens in your country.

If you genuinely think the way your society works is far better than any other, that's fine, but it's not a balanced viewpoint.

First you say "That is what can happen when you take powers away from the parent or family" but then you say "It does not impact family power and dynamic in any meaningful way"

My apologies. I meant the first generally, the the second locally. I assumed that the latter was clear from my clarification in the next paragraph.

It is not simply a life-saving procedure. It is an emergent life-saving procedure. There are legal differences between them.

That said, you did catch me there. I will admit that I am open to the exception that where a family member has expressed a desire to kill another family member, that I feel it is appropriate for the state to step in and intervene; but purely as a matter of criminal law and tradition.

Did you miss the part where I said that judicial bribing was an endemic problem in my country?

Can I ask why you keep making arguments about how other countries should run themselves, and then when pressed for your reasons, talk about conditions in your country? I'm not talking about something like "my country is better than your country here": I'm talking about pure applicability of arguments.

I think my view of what my state is and does is much better informed than yours.
Do you have any actual evidence that the judge was lying about respecting the rights of the German children?

Clearly not. The nature of a good spin is that it's unfalsifiable. That said, I find it highly suspicious that the judge conspicuously deigns to comment exhaustively on how his ruling will affect Muslims and Jews, which are the section of the nation's stakeholders who will most obviously be affected by it. Instead, he chooses to discuss "rights of the child" principles.

It's not proof, but I find it highly suspicious.

Do you think that maybe your suspicions are due to your stance that children's rights are controlled wholly by their parents? Does knowing that in the West that is not true make you less suspicious (regardless of whether you agree with it)?
Also: I think you missed a "not" between "deigns" and "to."

First you say "That is what can happen when you take powers away from the parent or family" but then you say "It does not impact family power and dynamic in any meaningful way"

My apologies. I meant the first generally, the the second locally. I assumed that the latter was clear from my clarification in the next paragraph.

It is not simply a life-saving procedure. It is an emergent life-saving procedure. There are legal differences between them.

That said, you did catch me there. I will admit that I am open to the exception that where a family member has expressed a desire to kill another family member, that I feel it is appropriate for the state to step in and intervene; but purely as a matter of criminal law and tradition.

And that changes everything. You will not have the same criticisms open to you to use against others once you acknowledge that exceptions exist. What's more, you now have to argue your exceptions are the right exceptions and someone else's are the wrong ones, which is a much tougher task.

I will further clarify that my concern over state prerogative over family powers stems partly from how I see that working locally. It would be bad.

Exactly. You assert suspicion of governments (mostly the US state, but occasionally your own, sure), while seemingly ignoring very real concerns about giving families absolute power. It's great that you apparently grew up in a household where you never had to be suspicious of your parents' motives, but that sure isn't true for everyone. When asked about very real issues such as child abuse and parents refusing to get their children proper medical care, you dance around them.

You can't just drop a statement like "that would be bad" and expect everyone to see where you're coming from. Why would that be bad, and if it's based on how it works locally, how is it applicable to the US?

Can I ask why you keep making arguments about how other countries should run themselves, and then when pressed for your reasons, talk about conditions in your country? I'm not talking about something like "my country is better than your country here": I'm talking about pure applicability of arguments.

I speak when I think it's applicable, obviously. I can clearly see health care being fought and implemented along party lines in your country. I foresee the family unit being dissected along similar lines if the state gets too much of its powers.

Stengah:

Also: I think you missed a "not" between "deigns" and "to."

Quite right. Thanks for the correction.

Do you think that maybe your suspicions are due to your stance that children's rights are controlled wholly by their parents? Does knowing that in the West that is not true make you less suspicious (regardless of whether you agree with it)?

Not particularly. What I've seen of the West just reinforces what I see locally. Politicians act and enact laws according to their interests. This was true when they needed the US to wage war against Iraq for their own interests. True for the Conservatives in their war against women. How is it any less true for anyone else?

A politician could act according to your personal morality provided that he or she gets the votes, or is lobbied for it. If there's more money and more votes coming from the converse, whoever is elected will act consistent with that.

I would prefer for that variation to stay out of my personal family interests.

"We" was not meant benevolently. It was simply a statement of involvement. I am part of that action. Needless to say, I am doing what I think is right, but I am also moved by political and economic forces.

Sigh. So when you ignore the wishes of a clearly dysfunctional parent it is in the best interests of the patient and obviously doesn't destroy the fragile family dynamic including parental prerogative.
When the State empowers others to do the same thing it obviously destroys the fragile family dynamic and obliterates any semblance of parental prerogative.
I have to wonder, would your stance be different if you were an employee of the state in the impossible position of arbitrating patient care directives in the face of a distrustful medical profession and a superstitiously devout family?
It certainly seems like team "We" can do no wrong.

Exactly. You assert suspicion of governments (mostly the US state, but occasionally your own, sure), while seemingly ignoring very real concerns about giving families absolute power. It's great that you apparently grew up in a household where you never had to be suspicious of your parents' motives, but that sure isn't true for everyone. When asked about very real issues such as child abuse and parents refusing to get their children proper medical care, you dance around them.

I resent that remark. I don't dance. I have made full comment on what has been presented, as I see it. If you have any issues on which I have not made a clear statement, present them.

I assert suspicion of governments in general. It happens to center around the US state because I usually get a lot of abuse from GWJ posters if and when I talk about the Philippines at any length. It's just a matter of what I'm allowed to talk about. I can wax poetic about the shortcomings of the Philippine government if you want.

To be fair, my view of families is as elemental as the circumstances which produced me. If a family abuses their children to the point where that reduces their power and influence as a family, then I really don't see that as much of a personal concern. More for the rest of us. The strong survive.

Rezzy:

Sigh. So when you ignore the wishes of a clearly dysfunctional parent it is in the best interests of the patient and obviously doesn't destroy the fragile family dynamic including parental prerogative.
When the State empowers others to do the same thing it obviously destroys the fragile family dynamic and obliterates any semblance of parental prerogative.
I have to wonder, would your stance be different if you were an employee of the state in the impossible position of arbitrating patient care directives in the face of a distrustful medical profession and a superstitiously devout family?
It certainly seems like team "We" can do no wrong.

If I were in that position in government, I will act according to my personal and career interests. Anyone would.

Did I miss saying that I did not mean "We" benevolently and that I am also acting in my own economic interests in that situation?